Louie Gohmert, US Republican Representative from Texas is speaking consumers’ language in the context of Obamacare by deciding to pay the penalty rather than the increased expense of his insurance plan under the PPACA, Obamacare. Arguably, Louie Gohmert could have upped his credibility if he rather than Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute had emphasized that the move was more about a political statement than about affordability.
As reported, in the “Dallas News,” 1/20/14, in an article by Ben Kamisar, Representative Gohmert does have other options available. The article discloses that, "Like every representative and senator, Gohmert can receive free outpatient care at Walter Reed Military Medical Center and other Washington-area military facilities,” as well as having access to other medical care. Also unclear is whether Gohmert’s wife can carry him on her health insurance plan if she has one.
The action, though symbolic, definitely comes across as at least as meaningful as the President’s “signup” for Obamacare. It was a good move on the Representative's part, and one more Republicans should emulate.
Gohmert’s tale exposes some real weaknesses in the Obamacare entitlements, the money paid by the federal government to individuals who meet certain criteria laid out in the law to help pay for health insurance plan premiums when they purchase a plan through a health exchange.
FIRST, Multiple Individual Coverages: Even without Obamacare, Gohmert is still eligible for free outpatient care. In other words, Obamacare was an ADDITIONAL option for health insurance for him for which he, through the Federal employee exemption COULD HAVE obtained Federal money reducing the cost of his premiums for a SECOND INSURANCE COVERAGE for himself.
Double-dipping, free benefits PLUS money to help pay for additional coverage seems like a significant loophole in Obamacare.
SECOND, Government Employees: The special treatment aspect of Obamacare highlighted by Harry Reid, (see post of “Harry Reid: Hypocrite Headliner,” at http://conoutofconsumer.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_4.html) was not lost to Representative Gohmert who rejected acceptance of the handout which ordinary citizens who earn as he does over $174,000 a year are ineligible.
THIRD, what happened to HOUSEHOLD income? Under the PPACA eligibility for the government handout in the form of premium expense funds was supposed to be based on household rather than individual income.
While Gohmert’s salary alone would have, if he were a non-governmental worker have excluded him from the entitlement, it is unclear that eligibility for the Obamacare handout is enforcing the provision of the law that requires that HOUSEHOLD income, rather than individual income fall below certain levels for the entitlement.
FOURTH, DOUBLE COVERAGE: Since the entitlement to federal money to help pay for insurance premiums is supposed to be based on household income, it’s also significant that the PPACA does NOT address access to other health insurance. For instance, if your spouse works and you can be covered by their health insurance, the law perpetuates and encourages the disparity between health costs experienced when you have multiple insurance coverages and when you have a single insurance coverage.
While anyone with a working spouse should have the right to be covered by the spouse’s insurance and their own, should a federal handout be available to a spouse covered by their spouse’s health insurance? I don’t think so. With all the federal budget concerns, this entitlement seems like a boon to the rich at the expense of the American people footing the bill for the entitlement.
(Double coverage is helpful in picking up what’s not covered by one insurance company or another so that individuals with multiple coverages can minimize out-of-pocket expenses for medical care such as co-insurance and deductibles that might not be paid by one plan that are picked up by another.)
FIFTH, the Representative’s experience, the jump in his insurance premiums is a reminder of the REDEFINITION of DISCRIMINATION under Obamacare. AGE is not a category worthy of protection from discrimination in the world of Obamacare.
The ACT provides for charging older people more in premiums AND uses that higher number to charge more to younger people whose premiums are charged based on a 3 to 1 ratio based on how much older people are charged. Young and old are both charged more under the PPACA while no other group (aside from smokers) can be charged more without such charges qualifying as unlawful discrimination.
